9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of in view of Rule 41 of CESTAT Rules. The request to this aspect is hereby accepted. Necessary change be made in the title of the impugned order. Rectification of error in respect of determination of nature of works contract - Held that:- The Hon’ble Apex Court in Larsen and Toubro [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] case also has discussed about the importance of bifurcation of the work. Resultantly, there is no error apparent on record of the impugned final order as is alleged, the order has no where touched the merits of the case. The adjudication is kept pending till the relevant documents to appreciate the applicability of the case law settled by Hon’ble Apex Court to the given facts and circumstances is obtained on record and are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in SERTA 5/2017 as was filed by the applicant. But the impugned order has still mentioned the applicant-respondent as L.R. Sharma. 2. The another alleged error apparent on record is impressed upon with the submission that this Tribunal has ignored the settled law of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Kerala vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. reported in 2015 (39) STR 913. To elaborate, it is submitted that admittedly the entire work is of a composite contract and the Service Tax vide the respective show cause notice has been demanded under Section 65 (105) (zzd). Since the same is not applicable to Composite Contracts/Works Contracts, the show cause notice is liable to be set aside and the demand has to be dropped as has been dropped ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the name of the respondent, it is observed that respondent is directed to be recorded as M/s. L.R. Sharma and Co. by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the order dated 22.09.2017. It is further perused that in the prayer to the impugned appeal, the appellant Department has also mentioned the assessee as M/s. L.R. Sharma Co. Resultantly, the name of the respondent assessee in the impugned order as L.R. Sharma is a typographical error apparent on record and can definitely be taken care of in view of Rule 41 of CESTAT Rules. The request to this aspect is hereby accepted. Necessary change be made in the title of the impugned order. 6. Now coming to the another alleged error that is ignorance of the settled law, we opine that the law as has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any service provided . All the services referred to in the said sub-clauses are service contracts simpliciter without any other element in them, such as for example, a service contract which is a commissioning and installation, or erection, commissioning and installation contract. Further, under Section 67, as has been pointed out above, the value of a taxable service is the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service rendered by him. This would unmistakably show that what is referred to in the charging provision is the taxation of service contracts simpliciter and not composite works contracts, such as are contained on the facts of the present cases. It will also be noticed that no attempt to remove the non-service eleme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to the service element in such contracts. It is this scheme and this scheme alone which complies with constitutional requirements in that it bifurcates a composite indivisible works contract and takes care to see that no element attributable to the property in goods transferred pursuant to such contract, enters into computation of service tax. 6.3 The bare perusal of the above observations make it clear that the adjudicating authority has to satisfy as to whether the contract in question is for service simplicitor or is a composite works contract. 7. Though the impugned show cause notice had proposed the recovery of Service Tax alleging the work carried out by the applicant-respondent as that of laying /shifting of water pipe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the applicability of the case law settled by Hon ble Apex Court to the given facts and circumstances is obtained on record and are considered first by the adjudicating authority below. 9. We are of the opinion that in the given circumstances, it is too immature to take a call about the allegation as that of committing judicial indiscipline as is alleged by the applicant-respondent. Above all, the debatable issue cannot be considered under the garb of the rectification. Seen from any angle, this grievance of appellant is not sustainable. 10. As a result of entire above discussion, the application in hand is partly allowed permitting the necessary correction in the title of the appeal in the impugned Final Order. [Pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
